It must be maddening for the law enforcement to have citizens who can hide something from them.

What about Criminals hiding something?

__________________"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

"If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters".

"A person who won't reason has no advantage over one who can't reason."

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."

“Ignorance is a lot like alcohol: the more you have of it, the less you are able to see its effect on you.”

Originally Posted by Rooster Rugburn:Didn't the whole sheepdog thing actually start right here on Glock Talk? A bunch of wannabees bought a bunch of T-shirts and took an oath to defend those who won't defend themselves?

I dislike the idea of criminals getting of a technicality, yet I see little difference in a person that uses the 5th amendment to not incriminate themselves by not providing statements that would later be used against them and not providing a password to access information that can later be used against them. My impression of the amendment is the idea of getting the accused to participate and assist in building a case against them.

I don’t like it one bit if it helps a dangerous person avoid justice, but I understand how one should not be expected to help authorities to build a case.

.

__________________

"In making tactical dispositions, the highest pitch you can attain is to conceal them." - Sun Tzu

If you had the proof of their crime, you wouldn't be so eager to read the data from their laptops. So we should use the word "suspects", not "criminals" at this point.

Naaaaa, many are criminals regardless of the amount of evidence that can be gathered (and is admissible) and what is proven in a court of law. There are criminals out there that have evaded justice and continue to harm others, lack of a conviction doesn’t change what they are it just changes what the courts/law can call them.

.

__________________

"In making tactical dispositions, the highest pitch you can attain is to conceal them." - Sun Tzu

§ 37.09. TAMPERING WITH OR FABRICATING PHYSICAL
EVIDENCE. (a) A person commits an offense if, knowing that an
investigation or official proceeding is pending or in progress, he:
(1) alters, destroys, or conceals any record,
document, or thing with intent to impair its verity, legibility, or
availability as evidence in the investigation or official
proceeding;...
(c) An offense under Subsection (a) or Subsection (d)(1) is
a felony of the third degree.

If he refuses to divulge the password, is he not effectively concealing the evidence?

Naaaaa, many are criminals regardless of the amount of evidence that can be gathered (and is admissible) and what is proven in a court of law.

Me and you may call them criminals. The law enforcement may not call them criminals or treat them as such. Those are the rules. And, contrary to a popular opinion, those rules were not made to protect the criminals.

A suspect has a safe, the prosecutors want to see the contents. The suspect says I will not assist you in gathering evidence against me by providing the combination.
The best safe cracker in town fails to open the safe, can he be forced to provide the combination?

If the accused produces documents that incriminate him, isn't it effectively "being a witness against himself"?

I don't see how it's any more providing testimony against yourself than opening the door to your house when the search warrant shows up. The evidence is what's inside the house/laptop, not your having the key to the door. And if you're concerned that the jury will know you had the key, then we just won't tell them that.

__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle

A suspect has a safe, the prosecutors want to see the contents. The suspect says I will not assist you in gathering evidence against me by providing the combination.
The best safe cracker in town fails to open the safe, can he be forced to provide the combination?

Yes. The 5th Amendment protects you against testimony. It's not a protection when you're subpoenaed to produce records, no matter how bad those records make you look. And in this case, the owner wasn't actually ordered to provide the key, she was ordered to provide the records stored in the safe. The exception is when there's doubt about the ownership of the safe/laptop and the records in it. That's not in play in this case; ownership isn't in question.

Related, from http://volokh.com/2012/01/24/encryti...incrimination/
"If the police have a warrant to search the defendant’s office for documentary evidence of a criminal fraud and find a locked file cabinet, the warrant reaches the contents of that cabinet. Issues about: (1) “expectation of privacy” in a locked cabinet; or (2) “proof” of what the government believes is in the cabinet are now irrelevant issues. Whatever may be inside is reachable by the police because they already satisfied the Fourth Amendment and got a warrant. This is true even if the cabinet contains evidence of a wholly separate crime, like possession of child pornography."

__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle

Me and you may call them criminals. The law enforcement may not call them criminals or treat them as such. Those are the rules. And, contrary to a popular opinion, those rules were not made to protect the criminals.

Sometimes I wonder about that, personal knowledge doesn’t seem to support it.

Nonetheless, I do believe there is little difference in this particular instance, an individual being required to provide a password or to facilitate information that is encrypted would be no different than providing a statement that would incriminate themselves. Either way, it would constitute assisting the prosecution in building a case against them. If discovery of that information is obtained without the active assistance of the person, then that is a different story.

.

__________________

"In making tactical dispositions, the highest pitch you can attain is to conceal them." - Sun Tzu